Autoimmune Diseases

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
• SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
• Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
• The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
• Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
• Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
• Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
• Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
• SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
• Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
• The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
• Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
• Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
• Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
• Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
• SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
• Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
• The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
• Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
• Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
• Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
• Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.

DISCLOSURES:

No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.

Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
 

SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies

The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.

The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.

For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.

All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
 

Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies

These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.

These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.

Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.

Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.

Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.

Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.

After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
 

CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating

At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.

At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.

Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.

For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
 

Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery

“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.

Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.

In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset

With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.

B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.

However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.

The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.

Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.

Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.

Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.

Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.

“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.

Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
 

Other Case Series Presented at EULAR

Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:

Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.

Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.

Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented.  Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.

August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.

Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
 

‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management

Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.

A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”

He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.

The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”

Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”

Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.

To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.

The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.

He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”

For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
 

Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align

Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.

“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”

In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”

“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
 

Remission Elusive but Getting Closer

In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.

Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.

Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”

Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.

Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.

“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”

Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 0.1% of the US population.^1,2 Severe disease or HS flares can lead patients to seek care through the emergency department (ED), with some requiring inpatient admission. ³ Inpatient hospitalization of patients with HS has increased over the last 2 decades, and patients with HS utilize emergency and inpatient care more frequently than those with other dermatologic conditions.^4,5 Minority patients and those of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to present to the ED for HS management due to limited access to care and other existing comorbid conditions. ⁴ In a 2022 study of the Nationwide Readmissions Database, the authors looked at hospital readmission rates of patients with HS compared with those with heart failure—both patient populations with chronic debilitating conditions. Results indicated that the hospital readmission rates for patients with HS surpassed those of patients with heart failure for that year, highlighting the need for improved inpatient management of HS.⁶

Patients with HS present to the ED with severe pain, fever, wound care, or the need for surgical intervention. The ED and inpatient hospital setting are locations in which physicians may not be as familiar with the diagnosis or treatment of HS, specifically flares or severe disease. ⁷ The inpatient care setting provides access to certain resources that can be challenging to obtain in the outpatient clinical setting, such as social workers and pain specialists, but also can prove challenging in obtaining other resources for HS management, such as advanced medical therapies. Given the increase in hospital- based care for HS and lack of widespread inpatient access to dermatology and HS experts, consensus recommendations for management of HS in the acute hospital setting would be beneficial. In our study, we sought to generate a collection of expert consensus statements providers can refer to when managing patients with HS in the inpatient setting.

Methods

The study team at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(M.N., R.P., L.C.S.) developed an initial set of consensus statements based on current published HS treatment guidelines,^8,9 publications on management of inpatient HS,³ published supportive care guidelines for Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 10 and personal clinical experience in managing inpatient HS, which resulted in 50 statements organized into the following categories: overall care, wound care, genital care, pain management, infection control, medical management, surgical management, nutrition, and transitional care guidelines. This study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (IRB00084257).

Participant Recruitment—Dermatologists were identified for participation in the study based on membership in the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation or authorship of publications relevant to HS or inpatient dermatology. Dermatologists from larger academic institutions with HS specialty clinics and inpatient dermatology services also were identified. Participants were invited via email and could suggest other experts for inclusion. A total of 31 dermatologists were invited to participate in the study, with 26 agreeing to participate. All participating dermatologists were practicing in the United States.

Delphi Study—In the first round of the Delphi study, the participants were sent an online survey via REDCap in which they were asked to rank the appropriateness of each of the proposed 50 guideline statements on a scale of 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). Participants also were able to provide commentary and feedback on each of the statements. Survey results were analyzed using the RAND/ UCLA Appropriateness Method.¹¹ For each statement, the median rating for appropriateness, interpercentile range (IPR), IPR adjusted for symmetry, and disagreement index (DI) were calculated (DI=IPR/IPR adjusted for symmetry). The 30th and 70th percentiles were used in the DI calculation as the upper and lower limits, respectively. A median rating for appropriateness of 1.0 to 3.9 was considered “inappropriate,” 4.0 to 6.9 was considered “uncertain appropriateness,” and 7.0 to 9.0 was “appropriate.” A DI value greater than or equal to 1 indicated a lack of consensus regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Following each round, participants received a copy of their responses along with the group median rank of each statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the first Delphi round were revised based on feedback received by the participants, and a second survey with 14 statements was sent via REDCap 2 weeks later. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method also was applied to this second Delphi round. After the second survey, participants received a copy of anonymized comments regarding the consensus statements and were allowed to provide additional final commentary to be included in the discussion of these recommendations.

Results

Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 participants completed the second-round survey. All participants self-identified as having expertise in either HS (n=22 [85%]) or inpatient dermatology (n=17 [65%]), and 13 (50%) participants self-identified as experts in both HS and inpatient dermatology. All participants, except 1, were affiliated with an academic health system with inpatient dermatology services. The average length of time in practice as a dermatologist was 10 years (median, 9 years [range, 3–27 years]).

Of the 50 initial proposed consensus statements, 26 (52%) achieved consensus after the first round; 21 statements revealed DI calculations that did not achieve consensus. Two statements achieved consensus but received median ratings for appropriateness, indicating uncertain appropriateness; because of this, 1 statement was removed and 1 was revised based on participant feedback, resulting in 13 revised statements (eTable 1). Controversial topics in the consensus process included obtaining wound cultures and meaningful culture data interpretation, use of specific biologic medications in the inpatient setting, and use of intravenous ertapenem. Participant responses to these topics are discussed in detail below. Of these secondround statements, all achieved consensus. The final set of consensus statements can be found in eTable 2.

Comment

Our Delphi consensus study combined the expertise of both dermatologists who care for patients with HS and those with inpatient dermatology experience to produce a set of recommendations for the management of HS in the hospital care setting. A strength of this study is inclusion of many national leaders in both HS and inpatient dermatology, with some participants having developed the previously published HS treatment guidelines and others having participated in inpatient dermatology Delphi studies.8-10 The expertise is further strengthened by the geographically diverse institutional representation within the United States.

The final consensus recommendations included 40 statements covering a range of patient care issues, including use of appropriate inpatient subspecialists (care team), supportive care measures (wound care, pain control, genital care), disease-oriented treatment (medical management, surgical management), inpatient complications (infection control, nutrition), and successful transition back to outpatient management (transitional care). These recommendations are meant to serve as a resource for providers to consider when taking care of inpatient HS flares, recognizing that the complexity and individual circumstances of each patient are unique.

Delphi Consensus Recommendations Compared to Prior Guidelines—Several recommendations in the current study align with the previously published North American clinical management guidelines for HS.^8,9 Our recommendations agree with prior guidelines on the importance of disease staging and pain assessment using validated assessment tools as well as screening for HS comorbidities. There also is agreement in the potential benefit of involving pain specialists in the development of a comprehensive pain management plan. The inpatient care setting provides a unique opportunity to engage multiple specialists and collaborate on patient care in a timely manner. Our recommendations regarding surgical care also align with established guidelines in recommending incision and drainage as an acute bedside procedure best utilized for symptom relief in inflamed abscesses and relegating most other surgical management to the outpatient setting. Wound care recommendations also are similar, with our expert participants agreeing on individualizing dressing choices based on wound characteristics. A benefit of inpatient wound care is access to skilled nursing for dressing changes and potentially improved access to more sophisticated dressing materials. Our recommendations differ from the prior guidelines in our focus on severe HS, HS flares, and HS complications, which constitute the majority of inpatient disease management. We provide additional guidance on management of secondary infections, perianal fistulous disease, and importantly transitional care to optimize discharge planning.

Differing Opinions in Our Analysis—Despite the success of our Delphi consensus process, there were some differing opinions regarding certain aspects of inpatient HS management, which is to be expected given the lack of strong evidence-based research to support some of the recommended practices. There were differing opinions on the utility of wound culture data, with some participants feeling culture data could help with antibiotic susceptibility and resistance patterns, while others felt wound cultures represent bacterial colonization or biofilm formation.

Initial consensus statements in the first Delphi round were created for individual biologic medications but did not achieve consensus, and feedback on the use of biologics in the inpatient environment was mixed, largely due to logistic and insurance issues. Many participants felt biologic medication cost, difficulty obtaining inpatient reimbursement, health care resource utilization, and availability of biologics in different hospital systems prevented recommending the use of specific biologics during hospitalization. The one exception was in the case of a hospitalized patient who was already receiving infliximab for HS: there was consensus on ensuring the patient dosing was maximized, if appropriate, to 10 mg/kg.12 Ertapenem use also was controversial, with some participants using it as a bridge therapy to either outpatient biologic use or surgery, while others felt it was onerous and difficult to establish reliable access to secure intravenous administration and regular dosing once the patient left the inpatient setting.¹³ Others said they have experienced objections from infectious disease colleagues on the use of intravenous antibiotics, citing antibiotic stewardship concerns.

Patient Care in the Inpatient Setting—Prior literature suggests patients admitted as inpatients for HS tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are admitted to larger urban teaching hospitals.^14,15 Patients with lower socioeconomic status have increased difficulty accessing health care resources; therefore, inpatient admission serves as an opportunity to provide a holistic HS assessment and coordinate resources for chronic outpatient management.

Study Limitations—This Delphi consensus study has some limitations. The existing literature on inpatient management of HS is limited, challenging our ability to assess the extent to which these published recommendations are already being implemented. Additionally, the study included HS and inpatient dermatology experts from the United States, which means the recommendations may not be generalizable to other countries. Most participants practiced dermatology at large tertiary care academic medical centers, which may limit the ability to implement recommendations in all US inpatient care settings such as small community-based hospitals; however, many of the supportive care guidelines such as pain control, wound care, nutritional support, and social work should be achievable in most inpatient care settings.

Conclusion

Given the increase in inpatient and ED health care utilization for HS, there is an urgent need for expert consensus recommendations on inpatient management of this unique patient population, which requires complex multidisciplinary care. Our recommendations are a resource for providers to utilize and potentially improve the standard of care we provide these patients.

Acknowledgment—We thank the Wake Forest University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Winston- Salem, North Carolina) for providing statistical help.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An early serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) has been validated as a safe and useful screening test with 100% specificity for predicting recovery of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in patients on tapering regimes from long‐term chronic glucocorticoid therapy (CGT).

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective review of 250-µg Synacthen test (SST) results performed in patients on tapering CGT doses from a single-center rheumatology department over 12 months.
• A total of 60 SSTs were performed in 58 patients, all in the morning (7-12 AM) after withholding CGT for 48 hours.
• Peripheral blood was sampled for cortisol at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes.
• Adrenal insufficiency (AI) was defined as a peak serum cortisol concentration.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean duration of CGT (all prednisolone) was 63 months, prescribed primarily for giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica (48%) and inflammatory arthritis (18%), with a mean daily dose of 3.4 mg at the time of SST.
• With the investigators’ previously reported basal serum cortisol concentration of > 237 nmol/L (> 8.6 μg/dL) used to confirm an intact HPA axis, no patient with AI would have been missed, but 37 of 51 (73%) unnecessary SSTs in euadrenal patients would have been avoided.
• A basal serum cortisol concentration of > 227 nmol/L had a specificity of 100% for predicting passing the SST, while a basal serum cortisol concentration of ≤ 55 nmol/L had a 100% sensitivity for predicting failure.
• A mean daily prednisolone dosing at the time of SST in patients with AI was significantly higher than that with normal SSTs (5.7 vs 2.9 mg, respectively; P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This offers a more rapid, convenient, and cost‐effective screening method for patients requiring biochemical assessment of the HPA axis with the potential for significant resource savings without any adverse impact on patient safety,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Ella Sharma, of the Department of Endocrinology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and colleagues and published online on May 19, 2024, as a letter in Clinical Endocrinology.

LIMITATIONS:

Not provided.

DISCLOSURES: 

Not provided.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.